Arizona does this every time marijuana decriminalization and other changes are voted in by initiative.

Arizona government is corrupt as it can be--Barry Goldwater, John McCain both have direct ties to the Mafia. The reason why marijuana will never be legal in Arizona is because the rich few make a lot of money on the illegal trade of drugs, illegal aliens and other criminal activity.

MoronLessOff:fragMasterFlash: MoronLessOff: I'd like to see this as well. A good, solid, no bs argument as to why marijuana is illegal. Why is it less acceptable than alcohol.

Its harder to tax than alcohol. All praise and glory to the mighty tax dollar!

Is it? It seems pretty easy to tax tobacco. Although, I'm sure plenty of people would grow their own. Then again, home brew beer and wine is a popular hobby. I still don't see the difference.

I would venture this guess: there is already a huge infrastructure for marijuana. If it was legal, all they would have to do is come out of the shadows. The cigarette industry, because it was never illegal, was always a taxable industry.

I guess though, that this doesn't make sense, because it would have to be sold through businesses, which would have to accept regulation.

BolloxReader:TimonC346: HotIgneous Intruder: Growing and smoking the weed is a federal crime.Get over it or change the laws, idiots.

Yeah, they are trying to make it legal at the state level. I realize federal laws trump state ones, sure, but can you give me a reason marijuana is illegal?

Bonus points for not using the phrase "dangerous drugs". Because it isn't.

/don't smoke//don't get why it is illegal

it is illegal because of the Temperence movement. Pot is one of the very few drugs actually banned specifically by Congress. Between DuPont wanting to corner the rope market and its high useage among Hispanics (a big threat according to many people at the time) it was an easy sell to Congress. The AMA testified against a ban as did a couple others. IIRC the only one who testified in favor of the ban was a "researcher" who injected something into the brains of a hundred dogs, four of which died. This was years before THC was isolated so who knows what he actually injected into their brains.

Anyway, Congress was trying to ban everything chemical back then so they scolded the folks testifying against the ban for wasting the committee's time, and the whole thing passed Congress pretty much without debate. The DuPont influence meant that hemp plants were banned in their entirety because of a zero tolerance clause. Their artificial ropes became the only game in town.

Because it was Congress and not the FDA that prohibited marijuana, it will take Congressional action to permit it. And that will never happen. It's too damned useful for law enforcement to get people they don't like off the streets.

I've never smoked pot, nor do I have any desire to do so, but the whole thing is stupid. The worst thing that I can think of is that people shouldn't be under the influence while operating heavy machinery. We already have rules for that, DUIs can be (and are) handed out for driving while high.

Many western states do not enforce Marijuana bans at all. I know from personal experiences that both CA and OR basically don't give a shiat about the stuff.

I have been stopped by cops (walking, and driving) while in possession, and never once has it been an issue. They don't even so much as scold you anymore. It's usually "have a nice day" 'citizen' (I add that last part in my head, because I think it's funny).

Just the other day, I was driving someone to the airport, and she just had to smoke before her flight. We got pulled over for doing 71 in a 55. It went like this...ME: we are about to get pulled over, put that away.COP: LIGHTS!Cop: You were doing 71 in a 55, why? Also, I can smell pot.Me: I was passing a truckCop: do you have pot in the car?Me: I Don't.HER: uh, yes, I doCop: do you have a medical card?HER: Yes, here it is /hands over card and potCop: BRBme: God damn it so muchCop after 5 minutes: Here is your weed back, and your card, you guys have a nice day.

Hobodeluxe:if Obama really wanted a game changer he should announce that he would move to get the federal controlled substance act amended to allow for medical mj. It might not pick him up a lot of new allies but it would sure energize a lot of his base.

LOL! Wait, are you serious? This same Obama administration who has increased raids on medical marijuana facilities?

Kahabut:BolloxReader: TimonC346: HotIgneous Intruder: Growing and smoking the weed is a federal crime.Get over it or change the laws, idiots.

Yeah, they are trying to make it legal at the state level. I realize federal laws trump state ones, sure, but can you give me a reason marijuana is illegal?

Bonus points for not using the phrase "dangerous drugs". Because it isn't.

/don't smoke//don't get why it is illegal

it is illegal because of the Temperence movement. Pot is one of the very few drugs actually banned specifically by Congress. Between DuPont wanting to corner the rope market and its high useage among Hispanics (a big threat according to many people at the time) it was an easy sell to Congress. The AMA testified against a ban as did a couple others. IIRC the only one who testified in favor of the ban was a "researcher" who injected something into the brains of a hundred dogs, four of which died. This was years before THC was isolated so who knows what he actually injected into their brains.

Anyway, Congress was trying to ban everything chemical back then so they scolded the folks testifying against the ban for wasting the committee's time, and the whole thing passed Congress pretty much without debate. The DuPont influence meant that hemp plants were banned in their entirety because of a zero tolerance clause. Their artificial ropes became the only game in town.

Because it was Congress and not the FDA that prohibited marijuana, it will take Congressional action to permit it. And that will never happen. It's too damned useful for law enforcement to get people they don't like off the streets.

I've never smoked pot, nor do I have any desire to do so, but the whole thing is stupid. The worst thing that I can think of is that people shouldn't be under the influence while operating heavy machinery. We already have rules for that, DUIs can be (and are) handed out for driving while high.

Many western states do not enforce Marijuana bans at all. I know from personal ...

mutterfark:I've never liked "medical marijuana". It should be legalised for recreational use. Responsible people can safely use alcohol and I don't see any evidence that marijuana would be any different.

Actually, marajuana is safer to use verses using alcohol. I have never heard of a case where someone has died because of an overdose, or "marajuana poisoning", whereas, there are plenty of cases every year of alcohol poisoning deaths.

tenpoundsofcheese:BolloxReader: I've never smoked pot, nor do I have any desire to do so, but the whole thing is stupid. The worst thing that I can think of is that people shouldn't be under the influence while operating heavy machinery. We already have rules for that, DUIs can be (and are) handed out for driving while high.

I just don't see how the FDA would approve a substance that is shown to have paranoia as a side effect.

How cute. Please search for the Parkinson's medication Requip. Allow me to quote it. "Requip may cause hallucinations" also "You may have increased sexual urges, unusual urges to gamble, or other intense urges while taking Requip." So your right, I am not sure how the FDA would allow something with negative side effects.

OnlyMeanWitchesAreUgly:MoronLessOff: fragMasterFlash: MoronLessOff: I'd like to see this as well. A good, solid, no bs argument as to why marijuana is illegal. Why is it less acceptable than alcohol.

Its harder to tax than alcohol. All praise and glory to the mighty tax dollar!

Is it? It seems pretty easy to tax tobacco. Although, I'm sure plenty of people would grow their own. Then again, home brew beer and wine is a popular hobby. I still don't see the difference.

Home brew beer and wine are considered inferior products compared to the stuff you can purchase. You can easily grow a quality product at home when it comes to marijuana.

I think it really goes either way. You also have to realize that some people live in apartments with kids. And while they could brew there own, its too much of a hassle. Some people may have a home but someone will not like the smell the plant gives off. And some people are just bad with plants. Some would grow and some wouldn't. I think it goes to economics. You have some that will be good and want a few dollars, or just want theirs on the cheap. But at the same time if it becomes that common the price will drop to where you could easily buy it for cheaper. Much like beer people would grow because they want control over the quality.

from your source: "Christoph U. Correll, MD, medical director of the Recognition and Prevention Program at the Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, N.Y., says that "marijuana usage can contribute to psychiatric disorders, but many people use it and don't have a psychiatric disorder"

When asked if he thought the marijuana was the chicken or the egg, he says: "I think it is a mixture. Some people affected by illness may choose pot to cope with symptoms, but at least for a subgroup, use of pot at an earlier age may hasten the onset of psychotic illness."

my thoughts--young people should not be smoking pot, period. i would definitely not advocate an age at which it is ok to begin, but i think you should probably finish high school first. YMMV

Why legalize for recreational purposes something that has no medicinal benefits and bad side effects?

We're talking about marijuana, not alcohol and tobacco.

Are alcohol and tobacco not drugs like marijuana? Any policy affecting marijuana implicitly says things about other drugs. Banning marijuana tells the public that alcohol and tobacco are safer, even though all available evidence says that is undeniably not true. Nobody has ever died from a marijuana overdose while several thousand people die from alcohol poisoning every year. As for tobacco, nicotine is the single most addictive drug on the planet while marijuana is one of the least addictive drugs.

tenpoundsofcheese:I just don't see how the FDA would approve a substance that is shown to have paranoia as a side effect.

Methamphetamine is FDA approved, so I think marijuana would be just fine getting approval should some enforcement laws change. Besides, many medications can cause paranoia - Celexa, trazodone, gabapentin, Wellbutrin, and Prozac just to name a few.

tenpoundsofcheese:OnlyMeanWitchesAreUgly: quite possibly more effective than the drugs they manufacture

The FDA disagrees with you.

Or are they in the pocket of Big Pharma? And the Trilateral Commission?

Are you a person who believes everything the FDA and Big Pharma tells you? Have you ever worked with the FDA? Have you ever worked in the pharamceutical industry and been in on the "need to know" basis of certain information?

I have. It's kind-of sad really. You start off thinking these agencies are there to protect you, and help you live a longer or better quality of life. Protecting you or helping you are only side effects of the actual goal. It's all about money and power.

Why legalize for recreational purposes something that has no medicinal benefits and bad side effects?

We're talking about marijuana, not alcohol and tobacco.

Are alcohol and tobacco not drugs like marijuana? Any policy affecting marijuana implicitly says things about other drugs. Banning marijuana tells the public that alcohol and tobacco are safer, even though all available evidence says that is undeniably not true. Nobody has ever died from a marijuana overdose while several thousand people die from alcohol poisoning every year. As for tobacco, nicotine is the single most addictive drug on the planet while marijuana is one of the least addictive drugs.

It should, but it doesn't.The ban on Marijuana has nothing to do with its medicinal value or danger to society. It was just another publicity stunt to fix a problem that didn't exist. You can reference prohibition, gun control, bans on prostitution and a half a dozen other overly regulated things for examples on how that goes.The politicians didn't care for the details. They just wanted votes and had to "do something" to get them.

Inventing problems to solve works just as good as solving actual problems.

If we were to go by value then tobacco has no medicinal use and the benefits of Alcohol (aside from improving Fark headlines) are questionable at best. Alcohol in particular is at the source of many incidents of domestic violence and fatal road accidents.If we are going to ban a drug based on its threat to society then there are two far better contenders than Marijuana.

/Personally: My view is that if the Doctor thinks you need it then he should be able to prescribe it./Even if its poison, that's between the two of you and the outcomes are on his head as much as yours./Alcohol is a toxic substance and has been destroying our society for ages, I'd ban it in a heartbeat./...but I already know that ban's don't work. So that's not a solution for anything./Stop buying guns for those morons at the ATF and give the doctors that money so we can treat addicts.

Jonny Chimpo:BolloxReader:I've never smoked pot, nor do I have any desire to do so, but the whole thing is stupid. The worst thing that I can think of is that people shouldn't be under the influence while operating heavy machinery. We already have rules for that, DUIs can be (and are) handed out for driving while high.

The one thing I can think of is the DUI aspect as well. Because it's illegal, suspicion of being high is all the cops need. If it became legal, they need something concrete. I have not heard of a immediate test (like a breathalyzer test for alcohol) on the amount of THC in your body. I also feel that it is still illegal because there is no company that would be able to make an immediate and ridiculous profit on it.

There is a mouth swab test that can detect if you've smoked recently; I'm not sure if there is one that can measure concentration.

Kahabut:Just the other day, I was driving someone to the airport, and she just had to smoke before her flight. We got pulled over for doing 71 in a 55. It went like this...ME: we are about to get pulled over, put that away.COP: LIGHTS!Cop: You were doing 71 in a 55, why? Also, I can smell pot.Me: I was passing a truckCop: do you have pot in the car?Me: I Don't.HER: uh, yes, I doCop: do you have a medical card?HER: Yes, here it is /hands over card and potCop: BRBme: God damn it so muchCop after 5 minutes: Here is your weed back, and your card, you guys have a nice day.

Me: WTF just happened?!-=-So you dropped her off and went home carrying her bag, because she did not get on the plane with it. Did she leave her card with you?Otherwise, if you got pulled over again, you could be up shiat creek then.

HotIgneous Intruder:Growing and smoking the weed is a federal crime.Get over it or change the laws, idiots.

An enlightened stance from someone who obviously understands the history of anti-marijuana legislation. $20 says you aren't black or hispanic.

They are trying to change the law numb-nuts, by changing the laws and creating debate at the state level they bring the issue to the national stage where it can be addressed at the federal level. It's called political pressure and the more states that legalize med mj the more pressure the feds feel to GET OFF THEIR ASSES AND FIX THE LAW.

So since they are already trying to change the law as you suggest, your comment essentially comes down to "get over it" which i must say is simply brilliant,

MeinRS6:edmo: So Arizona is concerned this law conflicts with federal law.

They don't seem troubled by this when it comes to federal immigration law.

That's a bad example, since federal immigration laws are not being enforced in AZ.

SInce when?

I lived close to the border in AZ for 12 years. They were more border patrol then there were civilians. You are just another lying repub. Not managing to catch every illegal does not equal no enforcement buttwipe. Also the enforcement is more stringent under obama than it has ever been, and I saw that with my own eyes.

NutWrench:I assume they're going to argue that the "Interstate Commerce" clause in the Constitution is what gives the Feds the right to strike down the local law.So in what way does pot grown in Arizona, sold in Arizona and consumed in Arizona constitute "Interstate Commerce?"

That precedent was set in the 1942 court case of Wickard v Filburn. Here's the Wikipedia article. In a nutshell, the reason is "even crops that don't leave the farm affect interstate commerce, and fark you, that's why."

Despite what Republicans claim, we haven't had a limited government with a clear distinction between federal and state powers for a very long time. The states are become merely convenient administrative subdivisions of the national government.

BigTexas:tenpoundsofcheese: BolloxReader: I've never smoked pot, nor do I have any desire to do so, but the whole thing is stupid. The worst thing that I can think of is that people shouldn't be under the influence while operating heavy machinery. We already have rules for that, DUIs can be (and are) handed out for driving while high.

I just don't see how the FDA would approve a substance that is shown to have paranoia as a side effect.

How cute. Please search for the Parkinson's medication Requip. Allow me to quote it. "Requip may cause hallucinations" also "You may have increased sexual urges, unusual urges to gamble, or other intense urges while taking Requip." So your right, I am not sure how the FDA would allow something with negative side effects.

Oh, come on. You went with pramipexole? There are much lower-hanging fruits that can illustrate your point. (BTW, far more people use it for restless leg syndrome than Parkinsons.)

There is no drug more paranoia-inducing than interferon alfa. I've seen patients go psychotic while on that drug. The reason the FDA approved it is that the risks of psychosis are outweighed by the benefit of being cured of hepatitis C.

Other frankly unsafe drugs are aldesleukin (used for melanoma and renal cell carcinoma) and ipilimumab (also used for melanoma). Look up the side-effects of those if you want an interesting/scary read.

(Unless drug companies start paying me, I will not advertise their products by referring to them with the proprietary brand name. Generic names only.)

Hey, try to pay attention, will you? They "follow" federal law when it suits their purpose. They flout federal law when it opposes their purpose. Still with us?

That's not rugged. That's a farkhole.

Because following the law is for saps and losers, right?It's hilarious how dope smokers think they're getting over every time they draw off a joint. It must give them a sense of being clever and smarter than society at large. Reminds me of the non-conformist hipsters who, as a group, conform to each other. A sort of Catch-22 for the fuzzy brained.

You keep trying to make fun of him for being a pothead, but you're the one who apparently can't read. It's really weird, because you keep responding to only bits and pieces of the comments. Kind of like Arizona legislature only pays attention to the laws it likes while ignoring the laws it doesn't like. Which, if you could read, you'd see is the point Asprin Burn is trying to make.

blockhouse:BigTexas: tenpoundsofcheese: BolloxReader: I've never smoked pot, nor do I have any desire to do so, but the whole thing is stupid. The worst thing that I can think of is that people shouldn't be under the influence while operating heavy machinery. We already have rules for that, DUIs can be (and are) handed out for driving while high.

I just don't see how the FDA would approve a substance that is shown to have paranoia as a side effect.

How cute. Please search for the Parkinson's medication Requip. Allow me to quote it. "Requip may cause hallucinations" also "You may have increased sexual urges, unusual urges to gamble, or other intense urges while taking Requip." So your right, I am not sure how the FDA would allow something with negative side effects.

Oh, come on. You went with pramipexole? There are much lower-hanging fruits that can illustrate your point. (BTW, far more people use it for restless leg syndrome than Parkinsons.)

There is no drug more paranoia-inducing than interferon alfa. I've seen patients go psychotic while on that drug. The reason the FDA approved it is that the risks of psychosis are outweighed by the benefit of being cured of hepatitis C.

Other frankly unsafe drugs are aldesleukin (used for melanoma and renal cell carcinoma) and ipilimumab (also used for melanoma). Look up the side-effects of those if you want an interesting/scary read.

(Unless drug companies start paying me, I will not advertise their products by referring to them with the proprietary brand name. Generic names only.)

ALL drugs have potentially undesireable effects (what we call "side effects"). The issue, as with interferon, is whether those other effects are outweighed by the benefits of not dying from a horrible disease.

Not everyone--or even most people--get paranoid from smoking pot, and, if only it wasn't illegal so we could study it, a little research might find an optimal amount beyond which paranoia is induced, or other contributing factors, or which strain is more likely to cause it.

Yes, if only marijuana wasn't illegal, we could actually study it and learn its properties. Shame, isn't it?

super_grass:So... when Arizona changes its illegal immigration policy against the wish of the feds, farkers complain.

After Arizona learns its lesson and changes its marijuana to follow fed policy, farkers still complain.

Methinks that issue here isn't Arizona's relationship with the Washington, it's about how its selective enforcement of federal law in the state does not follow your average farker's personal preferences. Federal law cuts both ways for your FREEDUMBs, idiots, deal with it.

Arizona hasn't "learned its lesson." The first time we voted for decriminalizing marijuana, it was simply tossed out. The second time, it was declared that the voters simply didn't have a clue what they voted for -- and that one got thrown out. The third time around, the proposed law got hijacked by a group of loonies who tried to throw in heroin and cocaine for legalization, too. Fourth time around, it became a "medical marijuana" issue, passed, and they've been trying to overrule the voters this time, too, but haven't come up with a legitimate excuse yet.

Tom Horne destroyed the state's education system already, then moved on to be attorney general so he could fark up everything else. Arizona voters are so goddamned clueless.

I have been a lifelong supporter of those who wish to use marijuana recreationally, but was too chicken to actually try it myself based on my sheltered upbringing. A few years ago, I said, "fark it!" and finally gave it a go at the age of 35 socially. A few instances later, I went for broke and got stoned off my ass. It was delightful...I felt like a big, smiling blimp as I slowly walked around. Wow. It felt MUCH better than being drunk. The next morning, I woke up without a hangover and went about my day as if I were healthy, happy and completely in control of myself. There were dozens of times waking up from an alcoholic bender that I couldn't function well for much of the day, and I'm sure my liver has many scars from it.

Hey, try to pay attention, will you? They "follow" federal law when it suits their purpose. They flout federal law when it opposes their purpose. Still with us?

That's not rugged. That's a farkhole.

Because following the law is for saps and losers, right?It's hilarious how dope smokers think they're getting over every time they draw off a joint. It must give them a sense of being clever and smarter than society at large. Reminds me of the non-conformist hipsters who, as a group, conform to each other. A sort of Catch-22 for the fuzzy brained.

"draw off a joint"? You sound very, very old. The last thing I think about when smoking a natural plant, which was ever only criminalized for purely political and economic reasons, is how I am circumventing the law. Your argument is invalid and frankly not very well thought-out.

Make sure you apply this same philosophy to yourself next time you go 1 mile over the speed limit... You must feel very clever, like society's rules don't apply to you. And that is actually putting other citizens in danger, whereas someone smoking pot in their own home is completely victimless.

/ I speed; just making a point that laws are sometimes outdated and not applicable for the protection of the public.